On Tuesday 07 February 2006 10:44, Pavel Machek wrote:> Are you Max Dubois, second incarnation or what?>> > Well, given that the kernel suspend is going to be kept for a while,> > wouldn't it be better if it was feature full? How would the users be> > at>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> > a disadvantage if they had better kernel based suspend for a while,>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> > followed by u-beaut-cooks-cleans-and-washes uswsusp? That's the part I> > don't get...>> *Users* would not be at disadvantage, but, surprise, there's one thing> more important than users. Thats developers, and I can guarantee you> that merging 14K lines of code just to delete them half a year later> would drive them crazy.

It would more be an ever-changing interface that would drive them crazy. So why don't we come up with an agreed method of starting a suspend and starting a resume that they can use, without worrying about whether they're getting swsusp, uswsusp or Suspend2? /sys/power/state seems the obvious choice for this. An additional /sys entry could perhaps be used to modify which implementation is used when you echo disk > /sys/power/state - something like